Biggest US Supreme Court ruling of the year

[Geilinor]

Soo... who can beat her easily?

I never said "easily".

But Rand Paul and Christie seem like likely candidates.

They could be likely candidates, but the question is "Are they likely winners?"

[Mousebumples]

Well the Supreme Court has definitely made an interesting ruling today and congrats to Hobby Lobby for their big win . Also you gotta love how this ruling is lighting up the net(massive liberal butthurt ftw.)

Unofficial warning for baiting. There are better ways to make the same point - as you showed in the first half of your post.

Viritica, I count at least 4 posts by you using the same comment ("butthurt Dems" or some variation thereof), which is certainly baiting, especially when used so repetitively.

In light of your history, enjoy a *** ONE DAY BAN FOR BAITING ***

[Death Metal]

I never said "easily".

But Rand Paul and Christie seem like likely candidates.

They could be likely candidates, but the question is "Are they likely winners?"

And the answer is "lol no."

[Ashmoria]

They could be likely candidates, but the question is "Are they likely winners?"

And the answer is "lol no."

hey some people are talking about giving mitt Romney another go at it.

the sad thing being that he is still head and shoulders above any other possible republican candidate.

[The Black Forrest]

I am dense and yet you can't name a republican who can beat her for whatever accomplishments......

I asked you to name a possible Republican candidate. You couldn't do so. Yes, you are dense.

Let's see I ask you what have the Republicans to run against her and you reply "name somebody"

Shall I draw a picture for you?

[The Black Forrest]

Soo... who can beat her easily?

I never said "easily".

But Rand Paul and Christie seem like likely candidates.

There. I knew you could do it.

So what accomplishments do they have to warrant my consideration?

[The Black Forrest]

And the answer is "lol no."

hey some people are talking about giving mitt Romney another go at it.

the sad thing being that he is still head and shoulders above any other possible republican candidate.

Indeed. It's somewhat depressing their standards are almost non-existent......

[The Orson Empire]

My concern is that the Supreme Court seems to honor the side that has no scientific facts to back up its argument. Hobby Lobby says that this birth control is the same as abortion, which is blatantly false and has been disproved by scientists.

[The Black Forrest]

My concern is that the Supreme Court seems to honor the side that has no scientific facts to back up its argument. Hobby Lobby says that this birth control is the same as abortion, which is blatantly false and has been disproved by scientists.

Hobby Lobby doesn't care about Science. Jebus club members make their interpretation.....

[AiliailiA]

I never said "easily".

But Rand Paul and Christie seem like likely candidates.

There. I knew you could do it.

So what accomplishments do they have to warrant my consideration?

I'll just point out that Virtica is on a one-day ban.

Paul is too inexperienced, and Christie is too moderate. I doubt either could get the nomination from their party.

[AiliailiA]

My concern is that the Supreme Court seems to honor the side that has no scientific facts to back up its argument. Hobby Lobby says that this birth control is the same as abortion, which is blatantly false and has been disproved by scientists.

It's hardly surprising that the justices have backgrounds in Law rather than Science. It's pretty much the same with the people who make the laws in the first place ... not a lot of scientists in Congress.

[Death Metal]

Paul is too inexperienced, and Christie is too moderate. I doubt either could get the nomination from their party.

Well, more like Christie is a european conservative and thus too far left of the GOP base... and Paul is a dominonist with a gullible fanbase that is much smaller than it thinks it is.

But other than that, yeah, pretty much.

[Caninope]

Okay. She stepped down. She's still going to hold her own views, and she's still going to be a huge influence in his life.

And as far as I'm concerned - as someone who absolutely despises them both - the matter ends there. Their behaviour is not, in any demonstrable fashion, unethical at that point - I'll still likely disagree with his rulings (such of them as he makes - when was the last time Thomas did anything but sign onto someone else's opinion?), but I won't consider them unethical due to Ginny Thomas' influence on him.

He writes opinions rather frequently, actually- not that they're particularly good, but he writes them. The last time specifically looks to have been June 23rd, 2014. See here for his opinions this past term.

[Caninope]

*snip*

New Chalcedon, you (and Ginsburg) both have brilliant lines of reasoning, and Hobby Lobby would have been ruled against, were it not for the exemption given to not-for-profit organizations. Given that not-for-profits and for-profit corporations exist in the same legal status (as corporate bodies), the exemptions given to not-for-profits show that despite public contraception being a "compelling public interest" (as it was argued), there are alternate methods of providing contraception (as the government funds the contraception mandates with nfp bodies, AFAIK).

That was the basis of a pretty narrow decision, from what I understand. The real simple way to fix this would simply be to amend the RFRA.

[JesusOfNazareth]

*snip*

New Chalcedon, you (and Ginsburg) both have brilliant lines of reasoning, and Hobby Lobby would have been ruled against, were it not for the exemption given to not-for-profit organizations. Given that not-for-profits and for-profit corporations exist in the same legal status (as corporate bodies), the exemptions given to not-for-profits show that despite public contraception being a "compelling public interest" (as it was argued), there are alternate methods of providing contraception (as the government funds the contraception mandates with nfp bodies, AFAIK).

That was the basis of a pretty narrow decision, from what I understand. The real simple way to fix this would simply be to amend the RFRA.

That would probably take another Democrat majority in the House and Senate, with a Democrat President.

[Alien Space Bats]

*snip*

New Chalcedon, you (and Ginsburg) both have brilliant lines of reasoning, and Hobby Lobby would have been ruled against, were it not for the exemption given to not-for-profit organizations. Given that not-for-profits and for-profit corporations exist in the same legal status (as corporate bodies), the exemptions given to not-for-profits show that despite public contraception being a "compelling public interest" (as it was argued), there are alternate methods of providing contraception (as the government funds the contraception mandates with nfp bodies, AFAIK).

That was the basis of a pretty narrow decision, from what I understand. The real simple way to fix this would simply be to amend the RFRA.

Yet if that's the case, why is the Court granting injunctions against the Administration's non-profit ALTERNATIVE to the mandate — the very alternative that it says should be available to for-profit corporations, and the very alternative that it claims represents a less intrusive way of achieving the mandate in the face of religious objections — for non-profits that are opposed to the mandate?

The Wheaton College case is telling: Here, the non-profit involved is claiming that filing a statement of objection to the mandate (EBSA Form 770) is ITSELF an unacceptable imposition upon the College's religious sensibilities, because by filing said form, its employees and students will have access to birth control which Wheaton does NOT have to pay for. In Hobby Lobby, the Court ruled that for-profit corporations should have been afforded the same options as religious for-profit entities — and now here it is saying, in essence, that it considers Wheaton to have an excellent claim to a right to interfere with ANYTHING that gives its employees and students from getting birth control, even if Wheaton doesn't have to pay a dime for it.

What the fuck is next, Wheaton claiming that it should be allowed to dock the pay of any employee who uses the money they've been payed to buy birth control, because as far as they're concerned, that money was for other things, and as an employer Wheaton shouldn't have to pay for birth control even with its EMPLOYEE'S money?!?

I think that Justice Alito's assurances that Hobby Lobby was, in essence a very narrow ruling are already proving to be a sham. This Court will find itself compelled to push further, and will almost certainly do so in the same illogical, inconsistent, and unfair fashion we've all become accustomed to from the right-wing activists that control it in the Roberts Era.

[Gauthier]

Can you say, 'lawlz'?

Gitmo detainees seek religious freedoms, cite Hobby Lobby ruling

[Caninope]

New Chalcedon, you (and Ginsburg) both have brilliant lines of reasoning, and Hobby Lobby would have been ruled against, were it not for the exemption given to not-for-profit organizations. Given that not-for-profits and for-profit corporations exist in the same legal status (as corporate bodies), the exemptions given to not-for-profits show that despite public contraception being a "compelling public interest" (as it was argued), there are alternate methods of providing contraception (as the government funds the contraception mandates with nfp bodies, AFAIK).

That was the basis of a pretty narrow decision, from what I understand. The real simple way to fix this would simply be to amend the RFRA.

Yet if that's the case, why is the Court granting injunctions against the Administration's non-profit ALTERNATIVE to the mandate — the very alternative that it says should be available to for-profit corporations, and the very alternative that it claims represents a less intrusive way of achieving the mandate in the face of religious objections — for non-profits that are opposed to the mandate?

The Wheaton College case is telling: Here, the non-profit involved is claiming that filing a statement of objection to the mandate (EBSA Form 770) is ITSELF an unacceptable imposition upon the College's religious sensibilities, because by filing said form, its employees and students will have access to birth control which Wheaton does NOT have to pay for. In Hobby Lobby, the Court ruled that for-profit corporations should have been afforded the same options as religious for-profit entities — and now here it is saying, in essence, that it considers Wheaton to have an excellent claim to a right to interfere with ANYTHING that gives its employees and students from getting birth control, even if Wheaton doesn't have to pay a dime for it.

What the fuck is next, Wheaton claiming that it should be allowed to dock the pay of any employee who uses the money they've been payed to buy birth control, because as far as they're concerned, that money was for other things, and as an employer Wheaton shouldn't have to pay for birth control even with its EMPLOYEE'S money?!?

I think that Justice Alito's assurances that Hobby Lobby was, in essence a very narrow ruling are already proving to be a sham. This Court will find itself compelled to push further, and will almost certainly do so in the same illogical, inconsistent, and unfair fashion we've all become accustomed to from the right-wing activists that control it in the Roberts Era.

Oh, come on, you're both overreacting and misreading the Court's position. To begin with, it is only an injunction awaiting the results of a court case- this doesn't mean that Court agrees with Wheaton, only that it thinks that a strong enough case exists that the enforcement of the law should wait until the ending of the final court case. And unless he recused himself, Justice Breyer was on the five vote majority that issued the injunction (as Justice Scalia did not join the injunction, he simply joined in the result).

Secondly, I would argue that this case is not actually inconsistent with Hobby Lobby and that you've gotten your facts wrong. Hobby Lobby talked about the "least restrictive option", which we'll refer to as Option X, and what was Hobby Lobby had to do (referred to as Option Y). Not-for-profits could opt into Option Z. Because Option Z was less restrictive than Y, that proved that Y was not X (the least restrictive), but did not prove that Z is X either.

But far more disappointing to me is your own misreading of the facts. The Supreme Court has found that nothing in the injunction (and as such, very likely that nothing in the future) will be misconstrued as to preventing the employees from gaining access to contraception through third party insurers, as if Wheaton College had already filed the appropriate forms. So no, I don't think that the Wheaton College injunction is half as big of a deal as you say it is.

[Caninope]

Can you say, 'lawlz'?

Gitmo detainees seek religious freedoms, cite Hobby Lobby ruling

Sure, I'll support this. Looks like Rasul was overturned.

[Maineiacs]

Can you say, 'lawlz'?

Gitmo detainees seek religious freedoms, cite Hobby Lobby ruling

Sure, I'll support this. Looks like Rasul was overturned.

Of course it was overturned. Now, if they had been Gitmo Detainees Inc...

[Murkwood]

I'm glad the Supreme Court took the side of Life on this issue.

[The Scientific States]

I'm glad the Supreme Court took the side of Life on this issue.

It's not really the side of life. They're allowing companies to refuse birth control in health insurance plans for employees. That's not the side of life.

[Murkwood]

I'm glad the Supreme Court took the side of Life on this issue.

It's not really the side of life. They're allowing companies to refuse birth control in health insurance plans for employees. That's not the side of life.

No, it is on the side of life. But we can have that debate later.

I'm glad the Supreme Court has been being more proactive in protecting religious freedoms.

[Brickistan]

It's not really the side of life. They're allowing companies to refuse birth control in health insurance plans for employees. That's not the side of life.

No, it is on the side of life. But we can have that debate later.

I'm glad the Supreme Court has been being more proactive in protecting religious freedoms.

Bull....

This isn't about religious "freedom". Freedom of religion necessitates freedom from religion. What this is about is allowing your employer to force his religious views onto his employees.

That's not "religious freedom", that's insanity!

[Ashmoria]

I'm glad the Supreme Court took the side of Life on this issue.

since when is anti-contraception "the side of life"

if anything it is the side of extra abortions.